"Suburban" style cities like L.A., SD, Seattle, Atlanta vs. "urban" like Miami, NYC, SF..which one do u prefer????? (apartment, condos)

[SEAandATL]

Originally Posted by westhou

I live in an urban area of a suburban city. So I guess I get the best of both worlds. I would hate to live in the suburbs of a suburban type city.

That's how I feel about Atlanta while I'm in areas like Downtown, Midtown, Buckhead, or Atlantic Station. They give me a little taste of urban cities. Overall, I prefer cities in the categories of Atlanta or Seattle for living, while cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and S.F. are fun to visit.

[Spade]

Well I prefer urban cities. I love the chaotic, historic, soulful, density, convenience, walkable cities. However, I like Houston's inner loop urbanity as well. You can have the outer loop. I don't prefer straight suburban cities that has little urbanity at all. But I wouldn't mind it.

Oh and I would also say that Seattle is more urban than Miami. Much more walkable.

[crisp444]

Urban without a doubt!

[toughguy]

I would not consider Seattle to be a suburban style city; Close to 4 million people hemmed in by Mountains and water, it's pretty urban by western U.S. standards.

For me, I prefer urban.

[atlantaATL]

suburban citys I like ciitys that have green space and where i can actually see the entire city and what it is worth. I cant take everything Built up and cramped up in one spot

[bostoner]

Funny, as recently as a year ago I probably would have said I prefer urban. But I was recently investigating a move and looking at some cities up north made of all concrete and asphalt and getting depressed about seeing hardly any green and not having easy access to nature. I need greenspace and open spaces. So I guess I prefer semi-urban, semi-suburban cities, along the lines of Katiana and westhou.

[uptown_urbanist]

I think urban and suburban as used here leave a lot of room for personal interepretation - if you've spent a lot of time in Los Angeles, for example, you'll find many areas are actually more "urban" than not. (in both good and bad senses of the word) There are parts of Los Angeles that rival Manhattan for density. (and of course many areas that don't)

I like a dense urban city where you don't have to drive but that still manages to retain some trees and green space. LA actually does that pretty well.

[radiodude84]

Originally Posted by bigdave01

IMO, Seattle is much more urban than Miami.

false

[radiodude84]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I think urban and suburban as used here leave a lot of room for personal interepretation - if you've spent a lot of time in Los Angeles, for example, you'll find many areas are actually more "urban" than not. (in both good and bad senses of the word) There are parts of Los Angeles that rival Manhattan for density. (and of course many areas that don't)

I like a dense urban city where you don't have to drive but that still manages to retain some trees and green space. LA actually does that pretty well.

No way - the densest area of LA is prolly WeHo at around what 30k/sq mile? Manhattan overall is like 76k/sq mile there are some segments that are probably pushing 200k - I think somebody told me Manhattan is densest area in western world (yes - more than Hong Kong/Tokyo).

Heck, even in Austin my area is around 15k/sq mile. 30k isn't that impressive. Maybe I'm wrong and there are denser parts. But saying it comes close to Manhattan is misleading.

[toughguy]

Originally Posted by radiodude84

false

From a superficial standpoint (google street view), Seattle appears more urban, at least in the core, than Miami. Care to backup your opinion?